The government of Ontario…

The government of Ontario needs to rewrite the ESA regulations, and monitor their implementation at a political level. It should NOT repeal the Endangered Species Act (RSO 2007). It does not need a new “Species Conservation Act.” Nor is it appropriate to redefine established English terms.

Exemptions vs Instruments
There is no need for a new “Species Conservation Act”. Here is one reason.

According to your ERO description, neither the revisions to ESA or the new CSA will exempt forest management. This is confusing. Without clarity of scope included in the proposal, this ERO posting is meaningless. The current ESA is fully able to address resource extraction - it is built into the ESA. A new Act will fall prey to the same fate - incorrect application of regulation. If the government does not understand the legislation it writes, and so fails to apply it to senior bureaucrats, then new legislation will not fix the problem. Politicians need to redirect the PS to apply legislation appropriately through regulation.

Case in point - The current ESA (RSO 2007) Section 18 allows for “Activities regulated under other Acts”. This section gives the government control of ESA conservation through the Crown Forest Sustainability Act - A practical solution stemming from the Harris government “common sense revolution”. A new Act must do the same, because it simply must be addressed.

The fact that this section WAS NEVER USED, shows that the government was not able to control the public service and never understood their own legislation.

Listing of Species
COSSARO is functionally eliminated - Regarding Listing (Section 4 - Functions of COSSARO) : Your statement “the government would have discretion to add extirpated, endangered, and threatened species to the list of protected species. The government would also have discretion to remove protected species from the list.” is tautological (I am trying to be positive here). If the government has full responsibility for adding to and deleting from the species list, then the role of COSSARO is what exactly?

In the absence of independent oversight and accountability, Public Servants will provide a politically acceptable list (it is their job afterall). Members of government will make political decisions swayed by lobbyists (it happens now but is minimal). In the new process, science is subservient to politics. Independence from politics is the hallmark of “modern” endangered species legislation. If Ontario does not pass the test of a modern Endangered Species Act, then it will result in federal legislation overriding ESA or the new SCA. Fun fact - the current ESA (RSO 2007) was specifically designed to avoid this.

The government may not remember that the whole point of COSSARO in the original act was to relieve politicians of responsibility for (and harassment from) this contentious job. All parties voted for it. It worked.

The new process will bias expertise that is available - serious scientists will not spend time being pushed aside by ill informed politicians, for a process that is primarily political and liable to be overturned by COSEWIC listing. Instead, experts available for an “advisory” COSSARO will be populated by well paid industrial employees. This has already occurred - the changes will cause greater industrial bias.

Ontario Redefining the word “Habitat”
It is Orwellian for a tiny administrative district like Ontario to redefine a globally unambiguous word to suit their tiny problems. That is not actually how English is supposed to work. But the main problem is that the definition of habitat that is proposed is incomprehensible - a jumble of selected life requirements and arbitrary boundaries. Most unusual is that the definition changes according to species group. That is the clue that you got it wrong. For illustration I have provided three (there are many) definitions that show how tone deaf the government is.

Here are definitions from 1) our Federal government, 2) a world class wildlife management scientist, and 3) the leading thought leader in communicating knowledge.

Environment Canada (The State of Canada’s Environment 1991) - “The environment in which a population or individual occurs. The concept of habitat includes not only the place where a species is found…”

Here is Jack Ward Thomas’ definition from Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests (1979 - trust me, he knew what he was talking about - Google him) - “The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or population of such species.”

Brittanica (https://www.britannica.com/science/habitat-biology) - habitat, place where an organism or a community of organisms lives, including all living and nonliving factors or conditions of the surrounding environment.

In common with all these definitions is their BROAD nature. Rather than redefine a firmly established globally understood term, why not speak plainly? How about - use the current and established definition in the ESA - AND APPLY IT THROUGH REGULATION, as follows.

Role of Regulation vs Legislation
This proposal misunderstands the role of regulation. The current ESA 2007 provides a framework for administration of endangered species management; it does not, as your proposal states, provide “a process to provide a permit”. The process is provided in regulation, as it is with all ephemeral activities.

In Ontario, legislation refers to laws enacted by provincial legislature, while regulations are specific rules or guidelines developed by government to implement and enforce the legislation. Legislation sets broad principles, while regulations provide details on how those principles are applied.

The government does not rewrite legislation when the public service gets tangled up in overregulation - they rewrite the regulations. Politicians need to do their job. Read their legislation. Apply it assertively.

Updated Compliance and Enforcement:
The words here are almost meaningless. Phrases such as:
“holding the regulated community accountable”
“more flexible tools”
“new order powers”
“risk-based, proportionate, and progressive compliance model”
“collaboratively addressing potential violations”
There is nothing to review here. This section of the post is not a consultation - it is a word salad.

Conclusion
As all political parties supported and acknowledged in 2007 in the ESA “Biological diversity is among the great treasures of our planet. It has ecological, social, economic, cultural and intrinsic value. Biological diversity makes many essential contributions to human life, including foods, clothing and medicines, and is an important part of sustainable social and economic development.”

My advice - Do not try to rewrite history, legislation or the English language. Make the system work as it is.